LexABHISHEK BANERJEE & ANR. versus DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 110 : 2024 INSC 668 Abhishek Banerjee & Anr. v. Directorate of Enforcement (Criminal Appeal Nos. 2221-2222 of 2023) 09 September 2024 [Bela M. Trivedi* and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to seeking quashing of the summons issued to the appellants by the Enforcement Directorate, seeking their personal appearance in New Delhi with the documents sought for, pertaining to the FIR registered in respect of alleged illegal excavation and theft of Coal, against the accused. Headnotes† Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – s. 50 – Power of authorities regarding summons, production of documents and to give evidence – Registration of FIR in respect of alleged illegal excavation and theft of Coal in leasehold areas of Coalfields – Issuance of repeated summons to the appellants u/s. 50 by the Enforcement Directorate seeking their personal appearance in New Delhi with the documents sought for, however, they failed to remain present, though appellant no. 1 appeared once – Meanwhile, complaint filed by the ED against appellant no. 2 for non-compliance of summons – Writ Petition by the appellants seeking quashing of the summons issued to them by the ED and seeking further direction against the ED not to issue any summons to the appellants for their appearance in New Delhi, rather than their hometown-Kolkata – Also miscellaneous case by appellant no 2 seeking quashing of the complaint and the order taking cognizance of the complaint, as also the summoning order – Dismissal of the writ petitions and the miscellaneous case – Challenge to: Held: Present ECIR is recorded at the Headquaters Investigation Unit, which is not restricted to any territorial jurisdiction – Further, as per the specific case of the ED in the complaint, filed against the accused persons before the Special Court, PMLA New Delhi, Rs.168 Crores were allegedly received by the Inspector from the * Author [2024] 9 S.C.R. 111 Abhishek Banerjee & Anr. v. Directorate of Enforcement co-accused to be delivered to his political bosses, and the said Rs. 168 Crores were transferred through vouchers to Delhi and Overseas, which clearly established adequate nexus of the offence and the offenders with the territory of Delhi – Thus, no illegality in the summons issued by the ED summoning the appellants to its Office at Delhi, which also has the territorial jurisdiction, a part of the offence having been allegedly committed by the accused persons as alleged in the complaint – Also appellant No. 1 being a Member of Parliament has also an official residence at Delhi – In view thereof, no substance in the challenge made by the appellants to the Summons issued to the appellants u/s. 50 – Furthermore, though the appellant No. 2 before the High Court had challenged the order taking cognizance of the complaint and the order summoning her before the Court, she did not even bother to produce the said Orders before this Court – Since the said complaint is pending before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, no opinion/ expressed on the merits of the said complaint – No illegality found in the said orders passed by the concerned court and that the said complaint to be proceeded further by the said court in accordance with law. [Paras 20-22] Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Object and scope of: Held: Provisions of PMLA are not only to investigate into the offence of money laundering but more importantly to prevent money laundering and to provide for confiscation of property derived from or involved in money laundering and the matters connected therewith and incidental thereto – PMLA is a self-contained Code and the dispensations envisaged thereunder, must prevail in terms of s. 71 thereof, which predicates that the provisions of the Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force, which includes provisions of the Cr.P.C – s. 65 predicates that the provisions of the Cr.P.C. shall apply insofar as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of the PMLA in respect of arrest, search and seizure, attachment, confiscation, investigation, prosecution and all other proceedings under the Act – Thus, having regard to the conjoint reading of s. 71 and s. 65 of the PMLA as also s. 4(2) and s. 5 CrPC, the provisions of PMLA will have the effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith conta
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.